Starbucks Must Face Toxic Work Conditions Class Action

Starbucks must face claims that they caused contractors emotional distress with toxic pesticides, according to a federal judge’s recent decision.

Although Starbucks argued that plaintiffs Paul D’Auria and Jill Shwiner would not have serviced Starbucks stores if they were afraid for their health, U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan recently rejected this argument.

According to Judge Nathan, it is entirely possible that the plaintiffs would have continued to work with the company due to economic or personal reasons.

“As Starbucks notes regarding the duty of care, people sometimes chose to stay in jobs that do not just involve being repeatedly exposed to hazardous conditions, but where the work itself is inherently dangerous,” Judge Nathan wrote in the order.

The plaintiffs, who work as pest control contractors, claim they were exposed to dangerous pesticides while performing services for Starbucks. According to the contractors, Starbucks locations in Manhattan fall into shocking conditions which allow roaches, rats and other pests to infiltrate the coffee shops.

To combat these pests, Starbucks allegedly uses No-Pest strips containing Dichlorvos (DDVP). DDVP is a pesticide which evaporates easily into the air, according to CDC’s Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry.

Unfortunately, the CDC notes that DDVP exposure can have significant health effects. DDVP poisoning is reportedly associated with nausea, anxiety, restlessness, teary eyes, and heavy sweating. In severe cases, this poisoning could also cause an inability to breathe, a coma, and even death.

D’Auria and Shwiner claim that DDVP should not have been allowed in Starbucks, as the pesticide is only meant to be used in unoccupied buildings. They allegedly feared for their safety when they were forced to encounter the dangerous chemical.

An additional plaintiff, Rafael Fox, claims he used to work for Starbucks but was fired after he complained about the DDVP pesticides and unfair employment.

Although Judge Nathan previously dismissed Fox’s claims for emotional distress, finding that the allegations were barred by a New York worker’s compensation law, the court kept emotional distress claims from D’Auria and Shwiner.

The judge also preserved claims for breach of duty of care, rejecting Starbuck’s arguments that the two contractors were hired to correct the use of dangerous pesticides. Judge Nathan’s order notes that D’Auria and Shwiner’s DDVP concerns were “dismissed by a Starbucks compliance specialist.”

Legal representatives for the plaintiffs are reportedly pleased with the judge’s decision to keep their claims alive.

“In times of great uncertainty, no one should worry that a corporation is knowingly and willfully exposing them to hazardous, odorless and invisible poison gas when they step in for a cup of coffee or settle down in a Starbucks store to work or socialize,” Class Counsel told Law360 following Judge Nathan’s decision.

This is not the only Starbucks class action regarding the same issue. On the same day that the employee pesticide class action was filed, several plaintiffs filed a parallel class action alleging that customers were exposed to dangerous chemicals. According to the Starbucks consumer class action, the “disgusting conditions” found in Manhattan locations pose a significant health risk to customers.

Were you ever exposed to dangerous substances at your job? Share your experiences in the comments section below.

Fox, D’Auria and Shwiner are represented by Ariel Y. Graff and Gregory N. Filosa of Filosa Graff LLP.

The Starbucks Pesticide Class Action Lawsuit is Fox, et al. v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 1:19-cv-04650, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Neocate Infant Formula Linked to Broken Bones, Rickets: Study

What Type of Lung Cancer is Caused by Asbestos?

Google Lawsuit Says Company Violates Students’ Privacy

CamelBak Class Action Says Water Bottles Leak